Energy

Friday Funnies

Waste not, want not

|

NEXT: Worst Buy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I remember liking political cartoons a lot better when I was younger.

    Were they better back then or are they just targeting a younger audience?

  2. Waste not, want not

    Or watt not.

    😉

  3. How much energy would we save by shrinking Congress by 40%?

  4. How much energy would we save by shrinking Congress by 40%?

    Probably a lot! To be fair, though, we wouldn't want to lose some Congressmen entirely while others sacrifice nothing; no, it would be better to simply remove the top 40% of each individual Congressman.

    I'm envisioning a chainsaw, though I suppose some sort of scythe would work as well, and would probably be more energy-efficient.

  5. Global Warming is not a laughing matter, you should take it more seriously.

    We are being cooked off the planet by our thirst for fossil fuels.

  6. We are being cooked off the planet by our thirst for fossil fuels.

    Once again, the free market at work...

  7. A chainsaw would work. Actually, I was thinking more in terms of staff, which would probably have pretty much the same effect.

  8. The majority of people are too lazy to actually make an effort to reduce their energy usage/ecological footprint. If the government forces them to change they will. Boo Hoo, I have to buy fluorescent bulbs. There will be an outcry and then acceptance, think catalytic converters.

  9. Were it not for the power of the purse Congress would be a benign tumor. Ugly to look at but relatively harmless.

  10. There will be an outcry and then acceptance, think catalytic converters.

    Oh, you mean the catalytic converters that sunk the American auto industry into a hole so deep they still haven't climbed out?

    Sure, thanks to a generous amount of support from the government, they're still making cars, but the Big Three were still called the Big Three before those cat converters came out.

    Now we're paying for the to (fail to) catch up. Good example there Chuck...

  11. I just purchased a big screen tv. Just doing my part for the enviroment.

  12. Why can't reason just hire Berkley Breathed?

  13. Henry Payne should look up the concept of Straw Man arguments, cause that's what he is doing with this one.

    "Once again, the free market at work..."

    'cept for all those fossil fuel subsidies and favored industry protections exacerbating the problem.

    "I just purchased a big screen tv. Just doing my part for the enviroment."

    was that a %40 more efficient LCD TV, or a %40 less efficient Plasma TV?

  14. now is the time to buy corvettes before they suck.

  15. If the government forces them to change they will. Boo Hoo, I have to (buy fluorescent bulbs) kill Jews. There will be an outcry and then acceptance, think catalytic converters.

  16. Catalytic converters made Chrysler design the K-car and the Big Three spend the 1990s designing gas-guzzling SUVs?

    I had no idea.

  17. Worst. Godwin. Ever.

  18. Matt said:
    "now is the time to buy corvettes before they suck."

    I would not bet on that.
    http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/12/35-mpg-fuel-eco.html

  19. You know, the Nazis had catalytic converters. Only they made the Jews install them.

  20. Osama bin Laden mentioned global warming in a recent videotape, and has long been hostile to oil companies.

    CAFE standards are the first step towards dhimmitude.

    Wake up America!

  21. You know, the Nazis had catalytic converters. Only they made the Jews install them.

    I thought the Jews were the catalytic converters.

    (ducks)

  22. I understand Jonah Goldberg has retitled his book again:

    Liberal Fascism: From Mussolini to Keeping Your Tires Properly Inflated

  23. Actually, the last panel should say "40% fewer trees killed".

    The catalytic converter did not hurt the Big 3.
    They hurt themselves by making nothing but gas guzzlers with poor quality during the 70's. They sized down a bit in the 80's, but didn't improve the quality. Two solid decades of poor quality and another decade (90's) of slow improvement hurt their reputation immeasurably and is what they're trying to overcome now.

    Public perception takes a long time to change when it comes to cars. GM and Ford now have better reliability than ANY german car (VW, BMW, Mercedes) and as good as or better than just about all others but Toyota, Honda and Subaru. (Chrysler still has reliability problems and is consistently ranked down with LandRover and VW). Ask the average person to rank the reliability of a VW Passat, Chevy Malibu, and a Suzuki Verona and I'm willing to bet the majority will rank the Chevy Malibu last (It's actually first according to Consumer Reports).

  24. Catalytic converters may reduce pollution at the point of exhaust, but they reduce mileage necessitating more energy use. Since there is less pollution overall, this means you are pumping more of that vile noxious CO2 into the air with catalytic converters than without, though it does manage to reduce L.A. smog somewhat.

  25. Taktix?
    Oh, you mean the catalytic converters that sunk the American auto industry into a hole so deep they still haven't climbed out?.

    Ahh but you forget that GM actually made a huge bundle of money on catalytic converters. They were the ones who owned the patent, so while it hurt consumers via higher car prices (less the benefit of reduced pollution), it was actually a subsidy to GM at the expense of the other "Big" two and foreign car manufacturers who had to purchase the converters for the cars they were to sell in the U.S.

    You can't blame GM's failure on catalytic converters--they were the ones lobbying for them!

  26. Someone please tell me why anti freedom environmentalists write stuff on this site again. Using the government to fight global warming is as bad as using the government to fight drugs, sex, and rock and roll. When is everyone going to realize how stupid of an idea that the war on global warmingism actually is?

  27. Other people's use of drugs, sex, and roll and roll don't harm me.

    Other people's greenhouse emissions do.

    Fists, nose..you have heard some of this before, right?

  28. "Someone please tell me why anti freedom environmentalists write stuff on this site again."

    Firstly, we are pro-liberty-environmentally concerned persons. We recognize that the environmental movement could be used as a pretext for attacking liberty, and we don't want that to happen as much as we don't want to see harm to our civilization's life support system. Exploring complimentary solutions is why we are here...although first we have to wade through the muck of climate delayism/denialism.

    "Using the government to fight global warming is as bad as using the government to fight drugs, sex, and rock and roll."

    I can agree with this statement because of a few reasons. First government as the Only Solution? would be too slow, too error-prone, and too fickle as administrations change. And thats in addition to loss of liberty. Two, Government is already making the problem worse by giving subsidies and market protections to the fossil fuel industries; and the government is also limiting our ability to adapt to rapid climate changes by giving similar protections to agricultural industries. Three, the Government can play a role by decreasing its own fossil CO2 emissions and getting quality certified offsets for the rest; it can also require that foreign imports be carbon neutral as well (tariffs to purchase offsets). None of the above is hostile to liberty but are things the government can do to make things better, lead, or at least not make the problem worse.

    "When is everyone going to realize how stupid of an idea that the war on global warmingism actually is?"

    It's really a citizens war. We have to change ourselves. It wont be easy, but I believe without a doubt that it can be done; we can stabilize our climate while building liberty and wealth for ourselves and all mankind.

    I believe that not adequately addressing climate change will actually threaten liberties and wealth, as panic sets in, and mass migrations of tens of millions occur. It's already starting.

  29. wade through the muck of climate delayism/denialism

    It's really a citizens war. We have to change ourselves.

    I believe that not adequately addressing climate change will actually threaten liberties and wealth, as panic sets in, and mass migrations of tens of millions occur.

    Which, to me, sounds like you've made your mind up that the collective "we" have to "fix" it. The mighty collective must atone for the sins of the individual, because he is lost and unaware.

    Balderdash.

  30. "Which, to me blahblah...'

    this is the language of subjectivism. You are projecting your fears...badly.

    Like I said. Big Government? (your Mighty Collective meme) alone can't fix this if it wanted to. Atonement for 'Sin' isn't the real issue, cleaning up our individual act so we as individuals don't hurt others is a Libertarian responsibility.

  31. funnay factor = 0

  32. You are projecting your fears.

    I'm not the one preaching doom. Doing nothing is an option for me.

    Big Government? (your Mighty Collective meme) [...] Libertarian responsibility.

    The pointless snark and peculiar capitalization indicate that there's some odd inside political-party joke of which I'm not aware. I suspect I offended you somehow, but it would be presumptuous of me to speculate; I'm sure I hit a lot of conspicuous, hyperdefensive peaks with my previous comment.

  33. "I'm not the one preaching doom."

    funny, neither am I.

    "Doing nothing is an option for me."

    So then you aren't emmiting any fossil CO2? Cool! Then the programs I am promoting won't affect you.

  34. "I suspect I offended you somehow, but it would be presumptuous of me to speculate; I'm sure I hit a lot of conspicuous, hyperdefensive peaks with my previous comment."

    ...AHA! (many hours after the fact) So offense is what is on your mind. I should have realized it earlier. As such fair reasoned debate is not what you want at all here. Your just being a troll for the fun of it.

    silly me.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.